Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rjanag

Motion to close
Could someone please close this RfC? It's been up now for forty days and attracted only a handful of comments in the last two weeks. I really think 40 days in the stocks is more than enough for any user. I did begin to close myself but I don't think it fair to close with a simple "due to inactivity" notice when there seems to be a solid consensus that the charges were not demonstrated and so on. Not sure what to do next so I filed this "motion to close" which seems to be the alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche, the filer of this RfC, feels that my statement above, ie that there "seems to be a solid consensus that the charges were not demonstrated" is a mischaracterization of the result of the RfC. As I said to him on my talk page, the above statement was not intended to be in any way definitive, as the focus of the comment was merely to ask for some assistance in what step to take next in closing the RfC. Since he has challenged my characterization however, I thought it best to summarize the RfC charges and the response to them as I interpret it.

Here are the essential charges as summarized in the RfC:

Over the past year, Rjanag (an admin; FKA "Politizer") has engaged in a pattern of serious, persistent misconduct: dozens of instances of untruths, incivility, personal attacks, profanity, wikihounding, bad faith, bullying, edit warring, gaming the system, hidden conflict of interest, and admin tools misuse

A total of four users, including Epeefleche, endorsed this summary. On the other hand, Black Kite's outside view rejected virtually all the claims, arguing that no pattern had been established and that at most, I quote, "a few diffs which relate to some of these claims" had been produced, and that Epeefleche should, in effect, put up or shut up. A total of 12 users endorsed this view, which is to say, four out of five users rejected Epeefleche's charges.

Later on, Baseball Bugs asserted that "obscenities and snippy comments" were unacceptable in an admin and that Rjanag "needs to rein that stuff in". A total of 14 users endorsed these comments. This was the only other view that attracted an appreciable number of supporters.

My own summation of the RfC then, is that virtually all the charges - of admin abuse, untruths, wikihounding, bad faith, bullying, edit warring, gaming the system, hidden conflict of interest, admin tools abuse etc - were rejected. On the other hand, there was a general agreement that Rjanag has sometimes engaged in incivility unbecoming of an admin - although not necessarily a "persistent pattern" of it - and that he should try to do better in that regard.

That's the outcome of the RfC as I see it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That characterization, of course, flies in the face of: 1) the dozens of diffs provided; 2) the very different reaction of the arbitrators at the RfA to the very same facts; and 3) the reaction of the majority of the editors--who were critical of Rjanag's conduct.


 * As to those editors who were not critical of Rjanag's conduct, and apparently do not think it a problem, for example, that he told more than one editor "Go fuck yourself," some might perhaps find their reaction curious. Especially in the case of those who are seasoned editors, and might have reason to be familiar with the type of conduct and communications that are acceptable on Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't quite true Epeefleche. We work by consensus, not a majority. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there were 11 endorsements of Black Kite's view, plus 1 endorsement by the subject, while there were 10 endorsements of Baseball Bugs view, plus 4 endorsements by the filing party. These views constitute the community consensus of this RfC/U. Black Kite's view suggests that the certifying party RfC appears to be coming close to pursuing a vendetta, and that there is weak evidence to substantiate the strong claims that are made - and that no consequence beyond a reminder is needed. Baseball Bugs view suggests that Rjanag needs to conduct himself in a manner that befits his position (that is, refrain from making unacceptable commentary, albeit, snippy or obscene). This resembles a reminder in itself. The arbitrators at the request for arbitration seemed to have reacted in line with this - there is nothing that warrants any involuntary remedy such as desysopping or a full case at this time. While it's possible that you and the certifying party may strongly disagree, this is effectively the community's view, and you'll need to respect that. In any event, it appears the RfC/U step has now been exhausted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what part isn't true. The Black Kite view refers to a few diffs.  There are four to five dozen, and they rise to the level (in more than one case) of him telling editors "Go fuck yourself".  How am I supposed to react to those editors who are not troubled by that?
 * As to the arbitrators, they didn't say this behavior doesn't warrant desysopping (though that was only one of the options presented). What they said in pertinent part was:


 * "either a case is needed, or this can be declined in favour of a request for comment" ... and then "decline in favour of a request for comment on admin conduct." (Carcharoth); and
 * "Accept - there are several serious issues here. ... several admins have been desyssop or resigned due to cause this year." (Rlevse); and
 * "Accept I don't see this conflict ending without ArbCom's assistance. Hopefully early intervention can help the involved parties refocus their energy into more collaborative contributions. ... IMO the most likely outcome (without ArbCom remedies) is the situation escalating with loads of drama or becoming a prolonged dispute. If ArbCom takes the case, hopefully the matter can be resolved with the least disruption.... I'm going to put my accept on hold to see if Rjanag's new statement with an apology will help permanently resolve the conflict. (FloNight); and
 * "Decline. ...there are other avenues yet left to resolve this matter." (Vassyana); and
 * "Decline, I think an RfC may actually be helpful in this situation, since Rjanag does seem to want to improve from this" (Wizardman); and
 * "Decline per FloNight's comments ... An RFC may well be helpful here, provided that everyone operates in good faith. I do hope that Rjanag understands that rudeness on the part of administrators is unhelpful to the point that it can be considered antithetical to continued use of the administrator tools, and will adjust his behaviour with that in mind." (Risker); and
 * "Rjanag should understand that future conduct and comments similar to the ones being complained about could tend to change a number of "decline" to "accept" votes very quickly." (Newyorkbrad).


 * I'm somewhat uncertain how you read that to be in line with Black Kite's dismissive comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed
This RfC/U is now closed. Unless the participants can agree upon a wording for a summary, whereby a summary will be added, this has been delisted due to relative inactivity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a peripheral participant may I suggest that "Rjanag needs to conduct himself in a manner that befits his position and refrain from making unacceptable commentary (snippy or obscene), but there is nothing that warrants any involuntary remedy such as desysopping or a full case at this time." would be a fair summary of the consensus? NBeale (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been loosely involved in the situation, the overall consensus I'm seeing here agrees that Rjanag is far from blameless, but that the behaviour asserted by Epeefleche has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. I'd probably go for a closing statement along the lines of


 * "While the scale of wrongdoing asserted in the filing statement has not met with widespread agreement, there is general consensus here that Rjanag should make additional effort to avoid obscenities and general incivility, and ensure he acts in a manner befitting an administrator. There is no consensus for any specific sanctions."
 * but obviously I've endorsed at least one view so I'm not an uninvolved party. ~ mazca  talk 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this (Mazca's) summary encapsulates the community consensus - the consensus-supported-views were pretty bold/clear in their views which is at variance with this. NBeale's view seems more accurate, though I would amend it slightly to say "Rjanag is reminded to conduct" and "but an involuntary remedy such as a desysopping or full case is not warranted at this time". Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the two summaries differ a great deal in substance but I think mazca's summary is better because it points out that most of the charges were not endorsed. Gatoclass (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)